This week in Toronto, the annual meeting of the Biotechnology Industry
Organization will take place, amid protests by environmentalists who want
to prohibit genetic engineering. This is a conflict between the creators
of a technology that has saved countless lives and improved countless
more--and the movement that is opposed to this new technology on principle.

Consider one of the earliest genetically engineered inventions: bacteria
with human genes that produce insulin that keeps millions of diabetic
Americans alive.

Or consider "golden rice," genetically engineered to have an
increased content of beta-carotene, which our bodies transform into vitamin
A. More than a hundred million people around the world suffer from lack
of this vitamin. Every year half a million children become blind and another
million die from vitamin A deficiency. Golden rice may help prevent that.

Yet the Institute of Science in Society, a London-based environmentalist
group, demands the prohibition of golden rice, calling it a "most
heinous abomination."

Or consider potatoes, bananas and tomatoes genetically engineered to
contain vaccines against a variety of diseases, including hepatitis B.
These vaccines are easy to take, they have no need for refrigeration and
they are as cheap as a penny a dose.

Yet a Greenpeace member declares: "We view genetically engineered
foods as having the potential for the largest environmental disaster in
human history."

And the director of the Organic Consumers Union says that the bio-engineered
vaccines are "a very bad idea. You don't want biotech vaccines out
in the environment . . . causing unknown problems . . . with unknown consequences."

But what about the known benefits that people get from immunization against
disease or from vitamin-enhanced foods? Why should we assume that the
unknown is real and ignore what we do know? The fact is that the opponents
of genetic engineering are all too eager to raise arbitrary fears, which
have no objective evidence behind them, while evading clear-cut evidence
of the value of genetically engineered foods. Why? Because their standard
is not man's well-being--but an unaltered state of nature.

By inserting human genes into animal embryos, scientists have enabled
various farm animals to produce proteins for the treatment of deadly conditions
such as cystic fibrosis, stroke, damaged tissues and infection.

Yet organizations such as Resistance Against Genetic Engineering campaign
to ban these animals, which they call "hybrid genetic monsters."
Monsters? By what standard? Surely not by the standard of human life.

Even more promising is the prospect of genetic improvements in human
beings themselves. One possibility being pursued is germ-line research,
aimed at removing bad genes and eliminating hereditary diseases before,
or soon after, conception. Another is stem-cell research, which opens
up the way to replace damaged tissues and organs with newly grown ones.
Both lines of investigation may lead to an unprecedented improvement in
human health and longevity.

To date, more than 130 biotech medicines and vaccines have been approved
by the FDA, and approximately 350 additional products are in late-stage
development. In 2001 alone, the FDA approved 16 new biotech products,
including breakthrough medications for leukemia, congestive heart failure,
HIV infection, pulmonary arterial hypertension and life-threatening sepsis.

Yet the hostility (from religionists as well as environmentalists) toward
this research is astonishingly strong.

The organization Human Genetics Alert describes it as "immoral,"
and the Sierra Club's former national director condemns this entire field
of research, claiming that its implementation would "destabilize
human biological identity." Imagine telling the parents of a child
who is dying of leukemia or diabetes that the disease could have been
avoided through genetic modification, but that the law forbids any tampering
with the child's "biological identity."

Opponents of biotechnology try to assure us that their purpose is to
protect human life. But their consistent stand against a technology that
saves millions of lives and that can potentially eradicate disease from
the face of the earth demonstrates the opposite. It reveals that they
have no concern for human life.

Environmentalists hold that man should not alter nature to serve his
ends. Nature, they believe, must be "protected" against human
intrusion, and we should learn to adapt ourselves to our environment rather
than adapt the environment to our needs. From this philosophical perspective,
genetic engineering is inherently evil, since it rests on the premise
that man is morally entitled to reshape nature to serve his ends. This
is why environmentalists oppose it in any form--and at any cost.

The targets of this vicious anti-biotech campaign need to grasp the nature
of their opposition--and need to mount an unequivocal moral defense of
their life-saving technology.

David Holcberg, a former civil engineer, is a senior writer for the
Ayn Rand Institute in Marina del
Rey, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author
of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Send comments to reaction@aynrand.org.